If we're talking about public perception of waste, statistics, whether global or local, are unimportant.  Statistics are for the informed.  Change the perception if you want to change public opinion.

The perception of the uneducated public is that golf courses waste resources.  How do we change perception? Education?  To a point.  I've read some good books on environmentally exceptional courses.  Unfortunately, Average Joe doesn't generally peruse the books I find on The Armenian's bookshelves.  Nor do the statistics I've read quoted here make much sense to Mr. Public.  We can start educating the young.  We can educate our friends and neighbors one at a time.  We can take on the public en masse via the media.  

I live in Boulder City, a small town just outside of Las Vegas.  Because of the drought, we are currently limited to watering once a week.  My day is Wednesday, and if I forget my turf and plants go thirsty for an extra week.  We have been informed there are patrols of Water Policemen out and about, gleefully ticketing any rebellious elements who have the temerity to water their oleander on the wrong day.  

There are three golf courses in the small town of Boulder City.  The oldest, the Boulder City course, is a nasty thing that was redone poorly a few years ago.  It has several unrelated and atrocious waterfalls amongst other architectural features too awful to go into, and the worst conditioning imaginable.  Shudder.  

The newest, Boulder Creek, is mostly delightful, but its construction did cause quite a bit of consternation among the citizenry.  Even now, as the 36 holes enter the final stages of completion, residents are somewhat resentful.  It's close enough to town for the locals to gaze out over their browning lawns to see the sprinklers watering the verdant fairways every night.  

Finally, right outside our fair community, hidden away in the mountains, lies Cascata, a literal oasis.  Its claim to fame is the forty-four-hundred-thousand-million-quadrillion foot waterfall that snakes across the desert to fill the various ponds, pools, creeks, and streams that add to the illusion of plenty.  The conditioning is perfect.  There is, we were told, no limit on the maintenance budget.  

Architectural considerations aside, Cascata is a public relations nightmare.  I stopped at the bank on my way home and mentioned to the teller I had been up to see it.  I got an earful.  I've since asked many locals their opinions.  The overriding perception is that this is an elite course for the privileged few, which uses an unfair proportion of our city's resources and gives nothing back to the community.  This may or may not be true, but it is the widely held opinion of the local populace.  There is no doubt that this course, and others like it, do not serve The Game in general.  

I'm not opposed to big, green, water-guzzling, environment-polluting golf courses . . . not even those without conservation practices.  I am not an environmentalist.  I think it's awfully cocky of man to believe we can destroy the planet . . . or save it.  That's the provenance of a higher authority.  But I digress.

The point is, public perception is important if new courses are to be built and old ones maintained without constant battles over the environment.  

Here's an idea.  Stop the practice of overseeding with rye in the winter.  Let's send the message that we want to play on dormant grass.  Dormant grass is so much more seeming; it fits into the desert landscape far better than does the green green green grass of home.  

Dry fairways in winter could go a long way towards changing public perception of golf course waste in general.  Imagine an advertising campaign that would not only bring in golfers who enjoy running the ball along strategic ground contours, but that would change public perception, as well.  

It's a start . . .    

Forrest

I certainly don't want to get into one of those ideagogue back and forths we see here where no one moves ground.

My background in golf dates back to 1974 when my parents became clubhouse managers in Derbyshire, England, they eventually retired from Western Gailes, Scotland. So I spent my adolescence living on golf courses. I've been a golfer for 30 years and the last 16 of those have been spent living in NYC and New England. I spend a large portion of my disposable income on golf and golfing trips. My work is in the entertainment industry. I am a member of Connemara in Co. Galway and our local 9 hole here in W. MA.

"Firstly, water costs $$, and there are few courses where $$ is wasted." - I can't  think of many times that I've left a North American course without the impression of excessive waste and indulgence. I think maybe Maidstone wasn't overly watered when I was there..
Affluent US golfers have gotten accustomed to paying so much for the game that the bill is simply passed on to them - so if that's not wasting money.. and that's the free market, then so be it, but I can't pretend to like the system.

My feeling is that modern N. American golf has gotten so far away from the game I'd like to play that I often decline invitations. I certainly won't visit a 'mandatory cart' course. I'd guess that unless the weather was exceptional, it would be borderline dangerous to attempt to walk a desert course. I guess - each to his own, especially in the land of freedom - but I've never had the inclination to go to the desert to play golf. Whether or not it should or should not be there is not my business.

The expansion of the game of golf, or more correctly, the golf industry, seems to be something Tiger Woods and the USGA and the PGA think is a good thing. That is because they have bought into the free market economics which demand constant growth. We live on a finite planet, and the golf industry, and it's desire for growth could, maybe, be an excellent model to illustrate the paradox here.

I certainly intend to research the arguments you laid out and I thank you for that.

 

Lloyd,

Some "desert" courses may waste water, but my experience tells me this is rare.

Firstly, water costs $$, and there are few courses where $$ is wasted.

Secondly, courses in true "desert" regions are increasingly being irrigated with treated sewage (effluent). This not only benefits the golf course, it also benefits the community by disposing of this water into open soils where it is filtered and returned directly to the aquifer from which it originated.

Thirdly, a hundred acres of irrigated open space produces enough oxygen to support a town of about 7,000 people. Golf course open space is not only sustainable, but it typically will handle drainage of rooftops, parking lots, streets and other polluting hardscapes. This dual role of courses serves populations, while also providing jobs and recreation. On a per capita basis, a golf course affects the environment far less than most other commercial uses — especially agrilculture.

I'm not sure where you reside, nor your professional background. I take exception with what seems like a blanket statement on arid climate golf. Perhaps you can tell me more?

Lloyd,

Which 9 holer in W.MA??  If you don't mind me asking.

Darva,

Well written.

Munson,

Redirect, get her off on a tangent about NASCAR or something like that..  And seriously suggest that maybe she should be concerned with on the whole environmental disasters like cities...

I try to water as little as possible, in the Northeast here right now I am trying to snow less .  There really is no point in discussing nation wide statistics because of the disparity.  There are arid region courses that have water budgets ten fold greater than my clubs whole budget.

Regards,
Steve


 

Llyod,

You say "[North American] golf has gotten so far away from the game I'd like to play..."

OK. But, here in America we did develop our own version of golf — Oakmont was probably the greatest example, and still remains so. I will agree that golf, especially the nail-clipper precision and lushness, has become overkill. But this is a phase, and it will pass.

Perhaps the greatest "strangeness" we have here is a bent to build courses anywhere — deserts, mountaintops, etc. But, this is really an expansion of the movement in the British Isles when golf moved inland, away from the linksland.

I know of very few courses in the U.K. or Ireland where courses are irrigated with effluent water — this is, as I have been told, because there is plenty of water and very little formal irrigation in the first place.

Golf in America is a business. But, it is one which uses water responsibly and is heavily regulated. Golf here employs far more people per hole than in the U.K. — I will guess the ratio is perhaps even 4:1 over the U.K. (my guess, nothing official).

Perhaps the greatest convincing justification is that water used on American golf courses is being returned to the ground, where most of it would have naturally percolated had it not been dammed or pumped. This, together with the points above about filtration, etc., justify a worthwhile "industry" which employs people, perserves open space and often handles floodwaters and drainage for communities — although certainly one where improvement is welcomed.

For one, I would like to see less water used — but this is not always practical. In Hawaii we have a 27-hole project which HAS to use 2 million gallons per day by the year 2010. Why? Because it is treated effluent (sewage) and without the golf turfgrass there is no place for the water to go — except the Pacific Ocean. This, by the way, is an increasing problem among American cities: Where do we put the treated sewage? Golf has helped answer that question, especially in the West.

Forrest,
My point was this: comparing water usage on golf courses to that for agriculture is never going to wash for many of the 90% of Americans who don't play the game. There is no comparison between providing food and playing games.

I think it's much better to focus on presenting the benefits that golf courses have in a more positive way than to try and justify their water usage by continually making quantitative comparisons to agriculture or housing.  

Comparisons are valuable, as are statistics, amongst those educated in their use.  But quoting stats is generally not the way to improve public perception.

When statistics are presented to the masses,  they are usually explained and simplified to make a point . . . at which time they become worthless for any other purpose.

In education and business, the primary purpose in both creating and using statistics from empirical studies is to try to improve one's bottom line/product/speed/etceteras by changing the way things are done.  

Stats are sometimes manipulated to try to sway public opinion . . . to, for example, get a bond issue passed or persuade more people to buy your product.  

When statistics are skewed or simplified, they lose their ability to help us determine what should be changed, which is generally why they were generated in the first place.  

These water statistics are interesting . . . to course managers, agronomists, GCA addicts, and redheads in Renaissance  costume, . . . but they are not going to win any hearts, and, in fact, are as likely to be twisted to the detriment of The Game as to be used in its favor . . . depending upon who is doing the presentation.

Statistics without interpretation are either frightening or meaningless.    

Or, that Tommy Naccarato likes to dress up  as a redhead in a Renaissance costume while he entertains out of town guests at Rustic Canyon?

In the UK, a new golf course has to prove positive environmental impact; otherwise it won’t get passed the planners.

As for overwatering and high chemical input just being a phase, I don’t know. The lack of classic courses being used on the Euro Tour (don’t know about US tour) is a direct result of simple economics. Go back a few years and places like Sunningdale and Walton Heath were getting regular big events and were being paid a course facility fee but then along came places like East Sussex National which offered to pay the tour to stage an event. This resulted in an immediate increase of £250,000 going into the pot and at the end of the day the tour is a business. It is like that everywhere now except that they have to pay a great deal more to get their courses on the telly.

And what do these courses want to get for their cash; increased revenue, and the best way to achieve that is high visual impact.

As long as you get these stripy green and blue monsters on the TV screens each week, the average golfer is going to equate that with quality and demand something similar at his home course. If every tour course was maintained and presented in an environmentally friendly manner, things would change, but can anyone see that happening?    

By the way. Painswick is a common land course and is therefore subject to many rules and regs. No water, no pesticides and the first cut of the fairways and any applications of fertiliser are subject to planning permission. It is effectively an organic golf course.


Forrest.

Typically courses in the UK will employ 6 greenkeepers per 18 holes. I am not sure but I wouldn’t have thought the average US course would employ 24 on their crew

I have followed this thread for awhile to see what has been said before I replied.  I am a golf course irrigation consultant that works with many of today's archhitects and also have designed systems at over 60 courses of the classical designers.

The use of water varies greatly upon many factors.  First and foremost is geography.  The courses of the Northeast where many of the classical architects worked have different needs based on evapotranspiration ( the amount of water lost daily through the plant and soil), rainfall, turf species and cutting heights than such desert courses as Shadow Creek which has been mentioned in this thread, and courses such as Lookout Mountain in Georgia.  Different irrigation system designs and the ever present pressure from membership also play a distinct factor in the irrigation of a course.  This is a discussion that could lead to a very long thread especially with some input of the architects who contribute to this site such as Ron Forse, Jim Nagle, Kelly Blake Moran, Tom Doak, Mark Fine and others.

For the most part, the systems that are designed today are much more sophisticated than even systems designed ten years ago.  Powerful computers play an increasing role in today's irrigation systems.  It is not unusual to have sprinklers that only water the fairway, others that only water the rough, green surfaces only, surrounds only, approaches only, and bunkers only.  The sprinkler system today are much more prone to agronomically be set up to water particular grass species and are set up to so that a superintendent can agronomically control his water.  Typically a weather station is attached to the computer so that evapotranspiration can be measured and only the water lost that day is replenished that night.

It is hard to quantify, as Geoff tried, the average amount of water that is used a day or a year.  There are too many factors involved.  Environmental regulations also play a major role in how we irrigate golf courses today.  As an example we recently finished the irrigation system at Winged Foot Golf Club both East and West in preparation for the U.S. Am. and U.S. Open.  We increased the number of sprinklers from approximately 2000 sprinklers to approximately 5000 sprinklers.  By doing this we actually gave the superintendent, Eric Greytok, more control of his water and we were able to actually reduce the amount of water that the Club used and reduced the watering time by approximately 4 hours per night.

Golf courses can vary from 5 Mil. gallons a year to 1 Mil gallons a night depending upon all of the factors mentioned above.  For the most part, I would say that of the approximately 250 golf course superintendents I have worked with, They are the most water conservationist group that we will see in America.  They have no choice.  Their livelihood depends on having happy members or clients who play their golf courses.  Most would say that greens are putting surfaces not targets.  They need to be firm to maintain those standards.

I hope this sheds some light on irrigation today.  I have these same discussions with members and boards of the clubs we work with on a regular basis.  If I can answer any questions please feel free to instant message me from this site or email me.

Paul

Cliff Hamm,

Please tell me that you're not trying to compare the climatic conditions and the agronomic needs of golf courses in the British Isles to golf courses in Florida, Texas, Arizona, Nevada and California, or all of America?

It's an absurd comparison.

That is an excellent point, Patrick.  I lived in Portland, OR for several years, and one year it rained every day for 140 days.  That's 100 days longer than the flood . . .  Noah had it good.  Water there was cheap, and you don't need much of it. I don't remember ever watering our lawn, although we did water the roses in the summer.  I've also spent enough time in England to remember that constant drizzle.  

Here in Vegas, if grass isn't watered every day in the summer, it doesn't take long for it to die.  I don't mean it turns brown and goes dormant.  I mean it dies and is fit for nothing but burial.  You can water, or you can have sand or rocks.  It's hard to play golf on sand and rocks.  

We call those "hazards."  

I actually suggested to the Armenian when he had lost his ball in the desert (a rare occurrence, I assure you ) that we invent a new game played in the rocks with rubber bouncy balls. It would, I suggested, be architecturally ideal, since it could be played on a totally *natural* course . . . No water, no trees . . . Just sand, rocks, and the occasional cactus.  He didn't find me as amusing at the time as I found myself . . . but that's typical.  I'm easily amused.  And he was looking for his ball . . .

Remember too, that water is one of the great camoflagers, and is used for that purpose in many a situation.

Please explain what you mean.  

Do you mean courses are sometimes over-watered to make the conditioning seem better at first glance than it really is?  So that "green" is used to disguise maintenance or architectural problems?  

Or do you mean water hazards are sometimes used to distract from other features?  Such as the way Cascata overwhelms with water on that little par three where the mermaid lives. Or the way our little course here in Boulder City attempts to hides the deplorable everything-about-it from the non-golfers living in the surrounding houses by adding more horrid little spraying fountains that would be more at home in Gran's backyard than on a golf course?  Or the way their superintendent comes out and shoots at raters with a water pistol when they are driving by the trees placed in front of bunkers, in hopes of distracting them?  

Sorry.  It's late, and I get a little silly.  

As you say, timing is everything . . .  

Fortunately, Glib takes my ribbing remarkably well.

Ah, Adam, but think how your sand game would improve!  You've missed the point, however.  There will be no green.  You may charge a brown fee, if you like.  

Think of the architectural possibilities inherent in the new game!  No greens or fairways, of course, but the bunker work!  

I can see the posts now:  "Differing sizes of pea gravel and its affect on club length."  "Sand vs. Rock:  the perfect putting surface debate continues."  "Joshua trees: Leave 'em or Lose 'em; Nature vs. Aesthetics."

Yes, Glib needs an outing.  I tried to get him down to Rustic, but I've lost my persuasive abilities, I'm afraid.  It's up to ya'll to persuade him to come out of seclusion.  

 Is that green overwatered or overoiled?